Tucker: The Man and His Dream is one of those rare films that is so delightful, expertly crafted, and flawlessly acted that it makes me gag at the inferior quality of most (not all) movies that come out of Hollypoop these days. This film sounded like a real toss-up when I saw it in our local library. The front cover looked like some awful burp of a schmaltzy sheen, and I almost passed it up for Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Looking closer at the team of actors/director was much too compelling, though…so I got both movies. I’m glad I did!Forget the lame title. And please, please don’t fall victim to your first impressions. This plays like a corny 50’s period drama at the start, but it quickly transforms into an impeccable show of filmmaking that transcends its own context. There is fine acting here…probably the best character piece I’ve seen from Jeff Bridges, easily rivaling his work in Fearless, The Fisher King, and
Tucker (Bridges) is a dreamer/inventor. His vision for greatness and his love and enthusiasm for his family (wife Joan Allen along with some kiddies including a very young Christian Slater) seem to uniquely spill over into each other. There was a question in my mind throughout the film as to whether his vision would ever squash his family or his family would ever squash his vision. He didn’t walk the line - he straddled it - with both feet firmly planted in his vision and his family. It was precarious. There were moments when I wondered if the family was about to lose Tucker to his vision, but the next scene would quickly assure me that Tucker’s quixotic nature was well-leashed by his own sense of duty. Then there were moments when I wondered if the vision was about to lose Tucker to his family, but the next scene would quickly assure me that the family’s investment in Tucker’s vision was almost as intense as Tucker’s.
The basic story is this: Tucker wants to invent a great and superior car that far surpasses the quality of the “Big Three” cars. He wants to make money, no question about it, but deep down he’s more interested in making something great. Tucker wants to make a great car, and his bold, adventurous nature sends him on a quest to do just that. Along the way he must contend with financial backing, politics, and the Big Three’s powerful opposition. But each obstacle was simply an excuse for Tucker to demonstrate his resolve. He pressed on, often using great wit and charm to make it through each hurdle. In trying to classify his personality, think Howard Hughes meets Tom Bombadil. And by the way, Tucker does meet Howard Hughes, which had me cracking up as my wife (who doesn’t know Hughes) wondered if I had had too much Rioja. Hey, there’s even a bit of courtroom drama! And in the end, it’s not about competing financially with the Big Three; it’s about competing with their customer’s sense of quality. What makes Tucker’s car great isn’t whether or not it sells, but whether or not the people think it’s great. Well, I think the car is great, and so is the movie!
Watchfeel (impact of visuals): +21
Mouthfeel (overall watchability): +20
Number Three
15 comments:
Had anyone else heard of this film before Number Three reviewed it? I know I hadn't, but Number Three's rave review made me dig a little deeper. Did you know this film not only picked up a solid 83% on Rotten Tomatoes, but that it was also nominated for three Oscars? Now I feel silly for having been totally ignorant of it.
I have......it's sorta one of those sleeper movies like Withnail and I or The Ruling Class that doesn't get a lot of hype, but is supposed to be a solid film. I haven't seen it.
Yeah...you can always count on a library to have a few gems among their diahrea that they call culture.
As someone who was around at the time this was actually in the cinemas I recollect this one being a flop. And I can see why: yes, it's a good film, but it's basically a "feel good" film without much substance behind it given the complete failure of the Tucker cars. Yes, a good cause is a good cause even if it ends up being a failure, but what I'm trying to say is that I'm going against the flow to say I think Tucker is a mediocre film and one of Coppola's not so great efforts. Tucker marks the beginning of his decline, which peaked with Jack; and for the record, I rate his Apocalypse Now as one of the best 5 films ever.
And one last comment concerning libraries: they do have lots of s**t, but they contain the knowledge base our society relies on; don't mock them that easily. See how long it took humanity to recover the knowledge that was lost when the library of Alexandria was burnt (and those B.C. guys already knew the world was round).
If you don't like what's in the libraries it's because we people see to excel in focusing on bad things, but it's a case where the little good compensates for the majority.
I don't know what kind of libraries you guys are going to, but the last few ones I've patronized have had plenty of quality stuff. Lots of documentaries, foreign stuff, classics, etc. Remember, there are a number of factors that go into what a library carries. Patron requests, book/film reviews, library journals, requests from other libraries, etc. But you're not adding anything to the conversation by knocking libraries, Hession. You've vocalized your disdain for the vast majority of American culture/taste so much, I wonder why nobody's bothered to ask you why you don't move somewhere you find more "wholesome".
Actually, scratch that last post. MAYBE your local library has an unusual amount of junk, but I tend to doubt it. As a moderator of this board, I'm telling you point blank to knock it off with the troll posts, Hession.
No! Absolutely No!
First off, I was in the library because I expected it to carry some worthwhile things, and did in fact find them.
Second off, I'm not going to not share my assessment of the crap/gem ratio of most libraries simply because people disagree. Just disagree and let's move on.
This is not a stalinist board. Tongue and cheek is allowed. And if you don't allow that comment then you shouldn't allow hundreds of comments here.
But being tongue-in-cheek is actually exercising some creativity. Your post was more akin to Beavis and Butthead saying, "Huh-huh. Libraries suck, and stuff." You can post what's on you think, but you have no right to get upset when people think you're full of it, especially when you make outrageous statements like that "Christianity is an oppressed minority", or that your moral compass is "perfectly in alignment with God's".
I would be betraying my principles if I didn't say I'm with Hession on this one. Obviously, it's your court so you can do whatever you want with it, but as long as it's not an offensive comment I don't see much of a problem with it (and even offensive comments can be good, but I woulnd't go into that discussion now).
If anything, provocative comments make your blog that much more interesting to read.
Personally, I often find myself "afraid" before adding a comment to your blog. I often exaggerate or focus on an extreme scenario to make my point. Am I going to offend you? I hardly know anything about you. But I don't think this "fear" (for lack of a better word) should be there.
For the record, while I might disagree with the idea of diarrhea filling local libraries, I don't think hession's comment was offensive or anything. It was just off-the-cuff...hession, you're free to correct me if you think that libraries are, in fact, worthless. ;)
And seriously, let's not resort to making people afraid to comment. I think we've all made enough "out there" comments without intending to be taken entirely seriously ALL THE TIME.
And can we take some focus off of past disagreements? It makes the current ones more personal and less enjoyable.
To be absolutely frank, how am I supposed to separate the serious from the kidding from somebody who's made
all manner of comments, some of which
that were meant to be serious but couldn't possibly be taken seriously? I hate to dredge up the past, but, just illustrating my point here.
Moshe, you should post whatever you want to post. The only objections I'll raise to content are to posts that I consider to be trollish in nature.
And on that note, maybe I'm to blame here. Maybe I've just been feeding the damn thing........
I did not feel offended by Hession's comments. I have actually done research on libraries and they all carry different things, so it could be very feasible that a library could carry nothing worht mentioning.
In regards to your point Moshe, I actually have the opposite problem, everything else people say seem to be provocative and I feel like I am the least provocative one on here, because I want to be nice, so I have fear that I am not being provocative enough. I appreciate the differences of opinion that we all have, and while it can get carried away sometimes I think people should be allowed to write comments but the authors of those comments should also understand that some people may be offended and we should all post harmoniously.
while i agree with SP that harmony is a good thing, i also am a little on Hession's side. one of the things this blog is about is the free exchange of ideas, and that can't be done without everyone feeling comfortable to express his or her own opinions. but in the same way, those opinions should be tactful and respectful. differ till the cows come home and beyond, YRF and Hession. but do it in a way that builds each other up, not tears each other down. i agree that this shouldn't be a Stalinist board. but let's at least keep this a Gandhi-like board.
yoink.
Post a Comment